ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SMT. KIRAN KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5964/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 July 2016AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for a preceding year. The High Court had held that computer software produced or manufactured qualifies for the benefit under Section 10B.

What were the facts?

The department appealed the CIT(A)'s order directing the AO to allow deduction under Section 10B. The assessee argued that an identical issue for a prior assessment year was decided in their favor by the ITAT and affirmed by the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 10B of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year in question, considering prior judicial precedents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 10B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 30.06.2016Pronounced: 01.07.2016

This is an appeal by the department against the order dated 27.08.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi.

2.

The only effective ground raised in this appeal reads as under:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow the deduction u/s 10B of the I.T. Act in accordance of law.” 3. During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that an identical issue having similar facts has already 2 Kiran Kapoor been adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench “D”, New Delhi in assessee’s favour for the assessment year 2006-07 as reported at 150 ITD 237 (Del) which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court as reported at 372 ITR 321 (Del) (copy of the aforesaid orders were furnished which are placed on record). The above contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not rebutted by the ld. DR.

4.

After considering the submissions of both the parties and material on record, it is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has already been adjudicated by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in favour of the assessee and against the department vide order dated 29.01.2015 in to 15/2015 in the case of CIT-VIII Vs Ms. Kiran Kapoor reported at 372 ITR 321 wherein it has been held as under: “Dismissing the appeal, that the work which ultimately resulted as the culmination of the assessee's efforts of compiling, editing, digital designing, etc. "is transmitted or exported from India to any place outside India by any means". It was, therefore, computer software that are produced or manufactured, to qualify for benefit under section 10B.”

5.

So, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the aforesaid assessee’s own case in the preceding year. I do not see any merit in this appeal of the department.

3 Kiran Kapoor 6. In the result, the appeal of the department is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/07/2016)

More judgments on Section 10B

All 1,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 10B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →